BALLEGEER VS AMAVISCA

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM CVPS2408327 BALLEGEER VS AMAVISCA INTERROGATORIES (GENERAL), SET ONE, BY ANDREA L. AMAVISCA Tentative Ruling: A party may file a motion compelling a further response to interrogatories if it finds that the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (C.C.P. § 2030.300(a).)

In a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to answer the interrogatories fully. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) Additionally, where responses to requests for admission have been timely served but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection is without merit), that party may file a motion compelling further responses. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(a).) Finally, pursuant to C.C.P. § 2031.310, when a party who serves RFPs receives responses that they believe are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or assert improper objections asserted, they may file a motion to compel a further response. (C.C.P. § 2031.300 (a), (b).)

In the present case, on September 17, 2025, Amavisca served the subject written discovery on Plaintiff. Between October 13, 2025 and December 19, 2025, Amavisca granted seven (7) separate extensions of time for Plaintiff to respond. (Asatourian Decl., ¶ 4.) On December 31, 2025, Plaintiff served her responses. The parties met and conferred and Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses to certain of the RFPs, RFAs, and FROGs, and further responses to all of the SPROGs.

After the motions were filed, it is undisputed that on May 5, 2026, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to the RFPs and produced documents; on May 12, 2026, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to the RFAs and FROGs, and on May 14, 2026, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to the SPROGs. Therefore, the motions are moot.

Monetary sanctions must be imposed against a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel, unless the court finds that the offending party acted with substantial justification. (C.C.P., §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2033.290(d); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1992) 20 Cal.App.4th 256. 260.) The multiple extensions and agreements to provide further responses, but waiting until after the motions were filed to serve such supplemental responses, does not constitute “substantial justification” as contemplated under the statutes.